I think this article itself should be a (probably very short) summary of the term's meaning and those who have used it, not a refutation of the assertions made in its original use. It could link to such assertions and refutations, as long as the links are properly referenced with the names of the authors concerned. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

"Hiroshima Cluehammer came to mean/means/meant..."?. At present time, the entry reads like an opening of the definition of the word, and stops prior to defining it.

Did it mean "Get a clue of the downfall of Furry Fandom due to X elements?," "Wake up an smell the coffee about the fandom demise due to X reasons?,"... Right know, it doesn't provide much as informative entry. Spirou 16:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's one of those "imminent death of the fandom" things. Rich felt he had to leave because we were doomed, doomed, DOOMED! -=)

(In other words, his response to the coming of the mythical Hiroshima Cluehammer was to run away instead of, y'know, sticking around and working to improve things like the rest of us. IMHO. YMMV.) —Xydexx 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Agreed. In fact, the entire article should go. This is NOT a term in common use in the fandom (Just use the Google Groups link provided...), and pretty much exclusively exists to enshrine Xydexx's argument with Chandler over his departure from the fandom. Wikifur should not be used as a way to get a permanent last word in an argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.244.253 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, since, although not a common used term, it's indeed a historical one, and anybody coming across outside Wikifur would welcome an explanation and context of the term here, BUT, that said, it stills does not come really clear to its meaning on the entry (see first paragraph on the section "The term's meaning.")

"Wikifur should not be used as a way to get a permanent last word in an argument,"... ? The last thing the article is coming across as such that argument =/ Spirou 09:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Where would anyone come across it? In one person's usenet post from 6-7 years ago? At best, it's really a reference best handled by the Jargon File, for Cluehammer. It's simple, the entire reason Xydexx originally created this article, and edited into Chandler's personal entry was to enshrine his personal argument with him over his quitting, and as a redirect for Xydexx's essay which again, is an extension of that argument. Why is that more "historically significant" than any of the other neologisms people have created in arguments? Where's the entry about "Invitation to Buttfuck" pictures? If that's the case. The the instigator of all of these entries is a participant in the argument, as opposed to an objective outsider is a clear indication of bias. This is nothing more than a vanity entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.245.70 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you get the point of this site. WikiFur is a furry Jargon File, as long as the jargon has become known. Consider that we also have an article on Nutella's role in the furry fandom. In this case, the term became known by Xydexx repeating it loudly enough that it stuck. Not the best way to introduce a term, perhaps, but ultimately a valid one. That does not mean he should be the only one saying how it is presented - and indeed, he has not been, and has had to move his argument to a separate page with a specific warning at the top.

This page is intended for neutral coverage of the term's origin and use - and I honestly think it does a fairly good job of that. You could well argue that it's more appropriate to cover this topic on the article about Richard Chandler, since he invented the term, but at this point I think it would overbalance the rest of the content in that page.

As for invitation to buttfuck, you are welcome to create that article if you think that it is relevant, or perhaps a mention on the above page would suffice. It was a comment about Wookiee's art, no? --GreenReaper(talk) 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

- Actually, the point of mentioning that expression was to point out how it was irrelevant. And no, it LONG predates Wookie. It's just another thing Chandler said in an Editorial once that pissed a few people off, and then faded into obscurity.

Although it's interesting that Xydexx apparently has a history of associating himself with all kinds of neologisms in order to secure his legacy. But frankly, for something to be considered part of a (sub)culture, it needs to be a subculture larger than one. The point still remains that this article was created BY Xydexx specifically so that he could link it into Chandler's bio, and then attach his own personal essay to get the last word in his debate on a.f.f with him. Other than Xydexx, and other than in the context of that six-year-dead argument, it is NOT a term in use by Furry Fandom.

Frankly, the whole thing reeks of using wikifur for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, rather than documenting Furry history and lore.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.244.238 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it's not a often used furry term, but in the context of the fandom, it's now part of furry lore/history. "Frankly, the whole thing reeks of using wikifur for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, rather than documenting Furry history and lore." If you think the article is not NPOV enough, please feel free to edit so Spirou 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

- "Not often"?! More like never. Google it, and it's only used by Chandler, once, and Xydexx when he wants to attack Chandler, period. And no, it's NOT a part of the lore. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of "Yiff" or even "Alstonitis". I submit that if you look at the history of the entry, it was clearly created as an attack on Chandler's position in that argument, and after being nailed for that, the article was turned into a Pointer to a copy of that attack. It never should have been created to begin with. Any further editing is merely polishing a turd.

To summarize: As was said before "Wikifur should not be used as a way to get a permanent last word in an argument," Look at the first version of the article. That's precisely what it was created to be. And now it's just a pointer to Xydexx's essay that copies the original argument. Unless there's a vested interest here to defend everything Xydexx utters, a neutral observer would have to agree that this article does not need to exist.

And this specific post makes used of the term outside of the chandler/Xydexx verbal sparring (posts) to signify exactly what the term implies. So, again, even if the term is not used anymore, it generate enough talk, discussions, references, debates for somebody to wonder what its the meaning of it, origin and history within furry lore.

As for the POV of it, again, contribute to its neutrality, but please, don't try to argue its non relevance, as by claiming its non-Google existence, you have brought up more that I already new about to begin with Spirou 03:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We have had several pages created at WikiFur with the purpose of disparaging their subjects - usually, pages about people. That does not preclude them from becoming good pages about the subjects, nor does it suggest that the subjects are not worthy topics. It just means the original edit wasn't a very good one. The article now here is not the opinion of any person - though it certainly cites the opinions of both Mauser and Xydexx, and points to several references as evidence of those opinions. Indeed, the "last words" of both are included - but that's a long way from agreeing with either of them.

If you would like to give specific ways in which the current wording of the article fails to be neutral, you are welcome to do so. If you're just going to say "the very existence of the article is non-neutral", I'm not sure we've got much more to discuss. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

- Be careful going to Google for support. Just a sampling of the results include Mouse talking about how Xydexx keeps bringing up "Hiroshima Cluehammer" "Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole 'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apperently for years after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)" And Xydexx's inability to let go of Fandom grudges. So just this one reference you cite supports my point that this article was merely created out of Xydexx's stalkerism. Several other of the results are merely quotations of the original post in replies, which doesn't count. Nor should replies to discussions where Xydexx is the one to introduce the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.245.120 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps a more correct entry about this would not be about the argument, which, frankly ended the day Chandler posted it because he quit, and instead should be about how one fanboy can become so obsessed that the phrase is more identified with him than his target.

As I said, the main issue of its non-neutrality is that it was created as a personal attack, and when called on it, was changed to a pointer to a personal attack. I can't see how any good can come of Wikifur being used to further someone's personal grudge.

Although I'm also getting the distinct impression that Spirou is NOT neutral on the issue of Xydexx's behavior, and if he is not, he should recuse himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.244.12 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Although I'm also getting the distinct impression that Spirou is NOT neutral on the issue of Xydexx's behavior, and if he is not, he should recuse himself,"... ?!,... Wow, just wow =) (A) I don't know you from Adam, (B) When you claim there's no Goggle proof, and there's such, don't be surprised you presented with it, and (C) how do you extrapolate a lack of a neutral point in the issue by pointing that there's Google proof?.

Sorry, but even IF the term was created initially as an "attack," people took it upon upon themselves to actually use it to meaning other than such, and thus become part of furry lore,... and you can point that on an edit, instead of shooting the messenger ^-^ Spirou 06:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

- Sorry, I just couldn't think of another explanation for why you were dragging your heels so hard on this. And I can't count a usenet post of that basically says "Xydexx, would you shut up about the damn Hiroshima Cluehammer thing already?" as a real "Usage".

Since all of the usages cited were cases where ONE specific person initiated the usage, i disagree with your usage of the plural in "people took it upon upon themselves". As in point B, examining your Google results only reinforces my point that it's purely at Xydexx's instigation... JUST as the article was created here. Same phrase, same Single individual with an axe to grind in a new venue. And THAT is what I base my claim that the article should be deleted upon. One person, with a decade long grudge, writing it upon the face of this Wiki, just as he does everywhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.245.120 (talk • contribs) .

You talk about grudges, but I get the feeling that you have a grudge of your own against Xydexx. That's fine, but I am concerned that it may be impairing your judgement in this context. --Douglas Muth 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I haven't visited this page in over a year, but let me just say I think it's really sad that Rich Chandler still can't quite let go of furry fandom even seven years after he allegedly quit. —Xydexx 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In a typical fit of self-aggrandizement, Rich Chandler claims the improved policies at conventions today (i.e., media policies, standards of behavior, etc.) were changes that he'd "been calling for all along". Can anyone find any evidence to back any of that up? The only changes I remember him suggesting were waging his little TBOF crusades to try to kick people out of the fandom. Considering how the policies we have today weren't a result of that, and the people he wanted to kick out are still here, one wonders what sort of mental gymnastics he's doing to convince himself he accomplished something. Food for thought. —Xydexx 06:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I know it's "ALL ABOUT ME" and everything, but as far as the improved policies at conventions today go, I can point to evidence that I supported a media liaison and press releases and a whole lot of other things that were adopted as standards by conventions, so that can't be the "opposition" to changes Rich Chandler is referring to. All Rich Chandler has to show so far is some sour grapes that he allegedly quit over Conifur not letting him ban attendees before they did anything to deserve it. (A search of Google Groups for Conifur's allegedly proposed Persona Non Grata list returns no results... and given his past history, one would assume Rich Chandler would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops if it were... so I leave the credibility of this claim as an exercise to the reader.) —Xydexx 05:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)